Re: [PATCH 11/20] mm/slab: consolidate includes in the internal mm/slab.h

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/14/23 05:41, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 08:13:52PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> The #include's are scattered at several places of the file, but it does
>> not seem this is needed to prevent any include loops (anymore?) so
>> consolidate them at the top. Also move the misplaced kmem_cache_init()
>> declaration away from the top.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  mm/slab.h | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
>> index 6e76216ac74e..c278f8b15251 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab.h
>> +++ b/mm/slab.h
>> @@ -1,10 +1,22 @@
>>  /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>  #ifndef MM_SLAB_H
>>  #define MM_SLAB_H
>> +
>> +#include <linux/reciprocal_div.h>
>> +#include <linux/list_lru.h>
>> +#include <linux/local_lock.h>
>> +#include <linux/random.h>
>> +#include <linux/kobject.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
>> +#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>> +#include <linux/fault-inject.h>
>> +#include <linux/kmemleak.h>
>> +#include <linux/kfence.h>
>> +#include <linux/kasan.h>
> 
> I've seen kernel code style in other places ask that includes be
> organized alphabetically. Is the order here in this order for some
> particular reason?

Hm not aware of the alphabetical suggestion. I usually order by going from
more low-level and self-contained headers to the more complex ones that
transitively include more, so did that here as well but it's not a precise
process.